Press "Enter" to skip to content

Obama Can Run on Record of Achievement, Beat GOP Arguments

Last updated on 2013.01.06

Troy Jones gives eight reasons that he thinks President Obama hasn't done anything to deserve re-election. Let's do the line-by-line:

  1. Stimulus: Jones ignores the fact that medicine doesn't always turn you into a muscleman; sometimes it just saves your life. President Obama's stimulus increased the GDP and created jobs, and we haven't slid back to double dip yet. If the economy is not firing on all cylinders, it's because the concentration of wealth at the top continues to hamstring consumer buying power and because government spending is down compared to rates during previous recovery efforts.
  2. Cash for Clunkers: The White House is willing to engage that argument and say the program was a net economic gain right when we needed it.
  3. Housing: The question for Troy here is just how high up in the Bush-era bubble he thinks we should irrationally re-inflate housing prices.
  4. Food stamps: If people are poor and hungry, the proper response is to feed them. President Obama is continuing a Bush-era policy to raise awareness of the program to encourage all people who are eligible to sign up.
  5. Dodd-Frank: I'll grant Dodd-Frank is flawed. But a Romney return to deregulation and high-finance free-for-all is not the proper response.
  6. Taxes: Jones gripes about paying for ObamaCare, which is a net budget plus. As usual, Jones ignores the fact that federal tax rates are lower under Obama than they have been in my or Troy's lifetime. The stimulus cut taxes for 95% of working Americans.
  7. Free Birth Control for All: I must not have gotten my coupon. And since when is getting a basic health care service as part of the insurance plan you pay for somehow a handout?
  8. ObamaCare: ...is pretty much RomneyCare. Since the GOP is nominating the one candidate who can't argue ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act is not a voting issue, unless you're looking for a reason to vote third-party.

And if that's not enough, an eager reader reminds me of this list of President Barack Hussein Obama's 50 biggest achievements, including...

  • closing down the Iraq occupation
  • eliminating Osama bin Laden
  • saving GM and Chrysler (100,000 new jobs added to auto industry since 2009; Detroit's Big Three all add market share for first time in two decades)
  • repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell
  • toppling Qaddafi
  • improving opinion of U.S. abroad
  • kicking banks out of student loans, using the savings to expand Pell Grants
  • signing Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
  • reforming credit card industry
  • cracking down on bad for-profit colleges (like the one DSU's current interim president ran)

In the face of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, President Obama has done all sorts of good. Re-electing President Obama doesn't require irrational messianic adulation; it just requires looking at the résumé and saying, "Keep up the good work, Barack!"

Update 13:54 CDT: SD Blogosphere pal and man of principle LK tells Troy and me both to jump in the lake. He refuses to legitimate with his participation "a vote against the more evil of two lessers."

44 Comments

  1. Aldo 2012.07.03

    Obama deserves to be thrown out of office and thrown on the ash dump of history for his war record alone.

    He kept us in the failed Iraq war effort for years after he took office at a substantial cost in lives and treasure.

    Worse, much worse, he expanded on the doomed Afghan occupation at an even greater cost in life and treasure.

    He even came out in favor of the war on drugs!

    This president ignored the lessons of the US experience in Viet Nam and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and wasted thousands of lives and billions, or trillions, of US dollars that could have been put to good use.

    It's a shameful record.

    As to the points above, The Obama stimulus was just more of the Bush stimulus; Cash for clunkers was a net failure; Obama has failed to bring housing back to a viable, not bubble, level; Corey's right about food stamps; Dodd-Frank is a failure; Taxes is a push - we need tax reform; Birth control?; We don't know if Obamacare will cut taxes, will succeed, or fail. However, it is a safe bet Romney won't work to keep it.

    All in all, that's a failed presidency.

  2. larry kurtz 2012.07.03

    ICYMI: Mr. Murphy (Aldo) is a lobbyist for the earth hater party.

  3. Bill Fleming 2012.07.03

    Even the most harsh criticism of Obama fails to translate into a vote for Romney. What Aldo sees as Obama's worst pales in comparison to what Romney says he'll do... especially if he's put at the head of a rampaging pack of GOP neocon war hawks.

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.03

    Bill's right, Aldo. If Republicans wanted to run an anti-war candidate, they should have nominated Ron Paul. Just as on ObamaCare, you're not identifying an issue that distinguishes the President from the main alternative.

  5. Jana 2012.07.03

    The fact that Troy and the Republicans don't like the stimulus and don't believe that it worked is interesting.

    I guess tax cuts for 95% of the people and tax cuts for small business don't work huh. After all $288 billion, or 35%, of the stimulus was tax cuts.

    Then there was that extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.

    I also seem to remember a lot of Republican Governors and Congress members having photo ops and bragging about stimulus projects in their states and the jobs that they created.

  6. Brian 2012.07.03

    I'm not sure the average voter shares your glowing perception of Obama's record.

    However, I also think that Romney's big business record is going to hurt him, as is his general lack of charisma.

    There will be some who vote against Obama no matter what, but I question whether there are many people genuinely excited about a Romney presidency.

  7. Brian 2012.07.03

    And the recipe for stimulus is not to reduce taxes and increase spending, but to reduce both.

  8. Rorschach 2012.07.03

    This tug of war between Pres. Obama and Willard Romney will be tightly contested till the end. The question is, What's gonna be dominating headlines in October & November.

    I'm still predicting that Benjamin Netanyahu thinks he can either force the US into a war with Iran or get Romney elected as the next President if Obama won't enter a war with Iran. I think in September or October there will be an "accidental" nuclear explosion in Iran. Bibi will jump up and down and say, "See I told you they were close to having a bomb". Questions will arise whether it was really an Iranian nuclear accident or whether someone like the Mossad smuggled a bomb in & set it off, but there won't be any proof at ground zero. Just a lot of fallout in the Presidential race. I also think there are factions in Israel worried about Bibi starting things because recently there were leaks from the Israeli government of intelligence saying they don't believe Iran is close to having a bomb.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.03

    Brian, tell me which economic textbook tells you that reducing spending stimulates the economy.

  10. Rorschach 2012.07.03

    Brian just flunked macro economics.

  11. Jana 2012.07.03

    Brian, as a percentage of GDP, taxes and spending are lower today than when Obama took office...so are you saying that what Obama has done is working?

    Is there a historical example of this ever working?

  12. Aldo 2012.07.03

    Troy,

    The issue was, what has Obama done to deserve re-election. On that point, he obviously does not deserve re-election. His war record is indefensible and he's done little or nothing else of consequence to offset that.

    But, if you want to reframe the question as "What distinguishes the President from the main alternative?" then yes, we will be forced to pick between two awful choices.

  13. Carter 2012.07.03

    I believe Brian falls into the old "If it works in my home, it will work for the government" idea of the economy. When he has no money, he doesn't spend anything, and then his amount of money goes up!

    Here's the thing, Brian: No one pays the government. No one pays corporations. No one gets money just for not spending.

    If the government doesn't spend, if corporations don't spend, if people don't spend, then no money is moving around, people lose jobs, money levels drop, and there goes the economy. It's really very simple.

  14. Aldo 2012.07.03

    "Troy" - meant to type "Cory",

    Not sure if Freud has a slip big enough to cover that.

  15. larry kurtz 2012.07.03

    Troy has yet to comment on this thread, Murph: using your criteria no President deserves re-election.

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.03

    Funny, Aldo: I keep typing "Tory" instead of "Troy".

    I agree that "Obama deserves re-election" and "Romney deserves election" can be viewed as separate questions... but only in an enjoyable armchair-philosophy session where we do not face a practical binary choice for leadership. Even if we could declare Obama's war record an absolute evil, Romney's at-least-as-evil war policies render the point moot for voters making a choice in November. We then need to look at the rest of the record that Troy and I are debating... and I say Obama offers an impressive list of accomplishments.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.03

    Brian: Heritage Foundation? Arrgghh—I knew first response would be some conservative agitprop. Let's get clear on basic economics: when the private sector can't or won't spend, the public sector can stimulate the economy with deficit spending. The government buys stuff, puts people to work, provides income and activity for manufacturers and retailers until the economy recovers. It's pretty basic economics.

    Now if I'm reading correctly the original authors Heritage cites, they aren't talking about how to stimulate the economy. They are talking about which policy is better for reducing deficits: raising taxes or cutting spending. They don't say, "Oh, just cut spending and your economy will boom." They are saying that targeted spending cuts (focus on fat, don't cut good stuff) can be less recessionary and maybe help growth than other deficit-cutting measures. But that contention doesn't refute the basic reality of stimulus spending.

    Now let's play link war:

    —economists Nakamura and Steinsson (2011) find economic stimulus has a 1.5 mulitplier effect on GDP. Same VOX website cited by Heritage: http://www.voxeu.org/article/does-fiscal-stimulus-work-monetary-union-evidence-us-regions
    —Ezra Klein reviews nine studies, finds no evidence the stimulus was counter-productive, preponderance of evidence that it did good.
    —And don't forget the argument offered by Paul Krugman, Bill Clinton, and Jon Huntsman that the real problem with the 2009 stimulus was that it wasn't big enough.

  18. Brian 2012.07.03

    My apologies on the Heritage link. I actually meant to link directly to the article itself because I figured you wouldn't like a Heritage source.

    As far as those articles you mentioned, I can just as easily say that they come from Liberal or uninformed sources. Hunstman an economic guru? I think not.

    And as far as stimulus spending, it is not at all settled that it works. I am a fan of the Austrian school, but I don't think it would be productive to get into a drawn out argument using links which will change neither of our minds.

  19. Rorschach 2012.07.03

    Brian you already flunked macro economics and added a link that doesn't say what you claim it says. Stop pretending like you know anything about economics. When you debate a debater and show up unarmed - you lose. Accept that Cory got the better of you.

    Jon Huntsman, the only reasonable Republican in the race (though Ron Paul has his moments). If Huntsman had won the GOP nomination I would have had a real decision to make. He should have run as an indy.

  20. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.03

    Oh no, not Austrian economics! Permit me to quote my friend Kyle Halgerson, who responded to a question from Steve Sibson on Austrian-style full-reserve banking thus:

    [STEVE] "Why doesn't colleges and universities give equal time to Austrian economics (versus Keynse(sic))?"

    [KYLE]: "The purpose of education is to prepare a student for their future career. Since no economy in the whole of the world implements the Austrian school, learning about it is of little (if any) use."

    "To use a colorful example, universities don't teach Austrian economics for the same reason that culinary schools don't teach how to make a crap sandwich" [Kyle Halgerson, blog comment, Madville Times, 2010.01.11].

    For the sake of your sanity, relevance, and investment portfolio, burn those Austrian economics pamphlets.

  21. Steve Sibson 2012.07.03

    "For the sake of your sanity, relevance, and investment portfolio, burn those Austrian economics pamphlets."

    So since the current economic system is not working perhaps we should burn the textbooks that is based on Fabian Socialism (Keynes) and start using common sense. How can you create wealth when you are consuming it?

  22. Steve Sibson 2012.07.03

    The founders of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (founders of the London School of Economics). Together, they wrote studies on co-operative economics applied to ownership of capital as well as land. The meat of their message was a minimum wage, creation of socialized medicine, and the abolition of hereditary peers. They favored a British Empire imperialist foreign policy as a conduit for Liberal Internationalism and reform and a welfare state modeled on the Otto von Bismarck Social Legislation and a national education system where its classrooms are the future battlefields of the Empire in which commercial prosperity are to be fought.

    http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/fabian-socialism-gone-wild_fabianism-feeds-on-capitalism-but-excretes-communism/

    Now are you ready to tie this to Freemasonry and the New Age Movement?

  23. Carter 2012.07.03

    "How can you create wealth when you are consuming it?"

    What. Your implication makes no sense at all. Did you even think about that? How can you create anything without consuming? This isn't a land of wizards where we can just conjure up a house, or summon a pig to eat. You get nothing without consuming. Wealth works the same as mass, which works the same as energy.

    The Law of Conservation of Wealth could be a thing. It's neither created, nor destroyed, it's just moved around here and there, and without some people getting rid of it, other people can't have it.

  24. Steve Sibson 2012.07.03

    Or should we just tie it to Obama:

    A famous quote is: “Fabianism feeds on Capitalism, but excretes Communism.”

    Based on what has transpired since Barrack Hussein Obama’s taking the oath of office (which he flubbed on his initial try and had to have the oath of office administered a second time), the Fabian philosophy is daily being exhibited by his advocacy for progressive legislation based on equality, yet favoring those in the lower working classes vs. those of highly productive manufactures of goods and services, the investors and risk takers who create businesses and employment. In other words, the engine that made the United States the envy of the world, until globalism entered the economy and nationhood became a four letter word. Soon, the socialists and neo-Con’s greed took over the government and Wall Street. His victory in congress to pass the stimulus law makes our children’s children’s children financial slaves to the tax man.

  25. Steve Sibson 2012.07.03

    Carter, when you consume capital, you have no means to produce wealth.

  26. Steve Sibson 2012.07.03

    "Justice Roberts is the one who blew it, Sibby."

    Just like he did last week.

  27. larry kurtz 2012.07.03

    Wait a minute: cannibalism is illegal yet transubstantiation through the Eucharist is a sacrament; that makes my bong a chalice.

  28. larry kurtz 2012.07.03

    Years of worship on a kneeler causes self-induced meniscal osteoarthritis yet birth control is a sin: gawd.

  29. Troy 2012.07.03

    I just saw this thread.

    Let me go by numbers:

    1) Stimulus: It didn't work. Obama promised 3 million jobs created. Unemployment is where it was when it passed. That convenient spin to "jobs saved" just means Obama is a liar.

    2) Cash for Clunkers: Even Obama's car czar and I think the OMB head have admitted it was counter-productive.

    3) Housing/HAFA: Everybody who knew anything said this was bad policy. We needed to take the hit, kick people out of their houses and get them into houses/apts. they can afford (the irony is former upper middle class and middle class got free rent something poor people don't get. This is an injustice and counter to the preferential option for the poor), give other people who can make the payments the home buy of a lifetime. Instead, we have lived for over 3 years with an overhang of underperforming home loans that depress everyone's house.

    If we had taken the hit, people who needed to sell their house in 2009 would have been in a bind. But instead we have just spread the pain over 3 years with no prospects for improvement until we finally do what we should have done in 2009. Moronic and unjust.

    4) Food stamps are more than a symptom of everything Obama has done to HURT the unemployed. The destroy overtime self-respect. People would prefer to buy their own food but they need a job, a job Obama effectively did everything he could to deny them the opportunity.

    5) Dodd-Frank: It was ill-concieved when passed, not only didn't reduce the chance for a future meltdown but increased the odds. There is a simple solution. One Obama hasn't pushed. I grant you I haven't heard it from many Republicans or Romney either but a few. But at least Romney opposed Dodd-Frank.

    6) FEDERAL TAX RATES ARE NOT LOWER UNDER OBAMA (Why do you keep continually repeating this lie?). Only collections which is due to the poor performing economy. More corporate profits, increased wages and more people working- More collections. Again, your "fact" only reinforces what Obama has done wrong.

    7) From Romney's speech the day the SCOTUS ruled was clear: "The first day I'm in office I will repeal Obamacare." How much clearer can he be?

    Cory, I hope Obama runs on those points you list. Talk about weak in the face of what will be four years of dismal economic performance, borrowing records amounts of money (in under three years, we added to our debt more than Bush did in 8 years and promises to more than double the national debt in 8 years. Seriously, he will do in 8 years what it took 228 years to do).

  30. LK 2012.07.03

    And here I thought the evil of 2 lessers was one of my finer rhetorical flourishes.

    Also, the only reason I want anyone to jump into a lake to cool down. Today's weather was terrible unless one found some refreshing lakeside spot and dove into the water a few times. (I stayed in the air-conditioning.)

    On the substantive issues, I have gotten to the point that civil liberties trump the economy. I'm not sure if that's principle or a stance made possible by living in a state that will never vote for a Democrat for President.

  31. Dave 2012.07.03

    Troy writes in DWC that “In the end, Obama promises you can have food stamps, free birth control, an unemployment check and free health care.

    Hmmm.

    • Food stamps: The Federal Food stamp program was designed to provide food to the needy. The original program (1939-1943) was enacted by Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. The program resurfaced in 1961. The current food stamp program is based on the Food Stamp Act created in 1977. Today, the program is called SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.

    • Free birth control: I am assuming that Troy is making this statement in the context of insurance coverage. It’s difficult to know; he intentionally fails to elaborate while making his assessment. (Please note the year of the study being cited in this information) The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage. Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/#ixzz1zaJpkaWw

    • An unemployment check: Here's a look a the unemployment compensation extensions passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 (HR 6867); Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2642); Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006 (S 1777); Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003 (HR 2185); Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 (HR 1559); P.L. 108-1 (S 23; Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (HR 3090). Of course, offering assistance to the unemployed didn’t just suddenly appear during the Obama presidency; through the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government of the United States effectively encouraged the individual states to adopt unemployment insurance plans.
    • Free health care: I have no idea what Troy is talking about here. Is his solution to end Medicaid? Or Medicare? Or disability payments? Or veteran health care services? No more health care for the indigent? Does he somehow believe that the Affordable Care Act will provide free health care for each and every American? He is being intentionally misleading, which is a shame, especially since he’s the last man standing at DWC. I’d refute him directly at that blog, but it doesn’t welcome a free exchange of ideas, and it blocks me. Pretty sad.

  32. John 2012.07.03

    8 reasons; 50 achievements - it's all irrelevant because only 13 keys matter. And Professor Allan Lichtman who predicted the winner of the popular vote since the 1980s said and confirmed that conservatively Obama wins by taking at least 9 of the 13 keys.
    http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/05272011/policol193154_32542.php

  33. Jana 2012.07.04

    Oh Troy, since we are having fun...

    1) CBO says that through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs. Let's just say it's on the lower end...is that worse than the Iraqi war will pay for itself...we'll be out in 3 months and they will greet us as liberators?

    2) Not sure I would put CfC on the top of my resume...but it did give the automakers the nitro under the tongue to get them going again. (By the way, do you think this will really be an issue? Won't that make people remember that he saved the auto industry and put GM back on top of the world?)

    3) Not thrilled with HAFA either...(again, I take the Krugman view that we should have spent more) but let's say that your guy did what you say needed to be done and take the hit and force millions of families out of their homes and change forever the lives of their children...all the while bailing out the banks who were more complicit in the disaster? Think that's a vote getter?

    4) Food stamps are a symptom of everything Obama has done? Yep...all Obama's fault...George who? Wait...what...oh never mind...neither of us is going to change the other's mind on "...but Lord, when did I ever see you hungry?" Oh, sorry.... Your idea must be that a few may die of malnutrition along the way, but that's the price we pay to prove an economic theory.

    5) Dodd-Frank. Screw Dodd-Frank...there aren't laws with enough teeth that these banks have to follow with any real risk of changing their behavior...mostly because they have no ethics.

    Funny, that you and the rest of the Republicans bitch about Dodd-Frank...but offer no alternative to prevent what they did to the global economy (and my 401K)

    Were you guys thinking that "OK now you've made me mad and you are not getting unlimited texting for one whole day!" would be enough?

    6) FEDERAL TAX RATES ARE NOT LOWER UNDER OBAMA...first of all, if you hit the 'caps lock key' again, that annoying all caps thing doesn't happen.

    With that aside, please do tell us the Federal Tax Rates that are higher under Obama and maybe a link for context. I looked and even played with the google thing and really didn't find anything that supports hitting the all caps key...that's not saying you aren't correct...just saying.

    Good luck with your keyboard.

    7) “The first day I’m in office I will repeal Obamacare.” So right after he is sworn in, and just before all those pesky dances...he can just change any law he wants? Just with the stroke of his $1,500,000 jewel encrusted Aurora Diamante Fountain Pen?

    Who knew it was that easy? Maybe while he's at it he can repeal all kinds of other laws and even get rid of three federal agencies...commerce, education...and...ewps.

    So did anyone on his staff get him a job description of what he can do and what he can't?

    Bet you $10,000 he can't!

    As far as your last paragraph...you should know better than to throw that old canard out there. Quick question Troy...how much of the debt accrued under Obama is from his own initiated spending? How much from his immediate predecessor?

  34. Jana 2012.07.04

    Troy and Cory...maybe the two of you can start a thread on what Romney will run on?

  35. Barry Smith 2012.07.04

    Troy
    You need to amend your point number seven because you are not clear in what it was the Romney actually said. He knows he can't repeal on day one, he just wants the voters to think he can. He said he would "act" to repeal obamacare on day one. Big difference not not really very clear.

  36. Troy Jones 2012.07.04

    Jana,

    1). I have never seen that. I would,doesn't like to see how they can say that.

    2). Obama's car czar disagrees with you.

    3). Might not be a vote getter but it would have helped millions of families get their dream home. And actually having courage is a vote getter as we would have this behind us. I am always amazed liberals defend giving free rent to upper and middle class people when poor get evicted if they don't pay their rent.

    4). I support food stamps and want nobody to starve. But, I would not be proud more people are on food stamps. The goal is to get people off. But when it is all this guy has to offer, I would take it I guess.

    5). Dodd-Frank did nothing to prevent what you chastise as happening but makes it worse. Just because you want something to happen, doing Stupid is not the answer.

    6) Tax rates are flat during from Bush to Obama.

    7) I should have said he will work to repeal it. However, the power of the President is great. Obama is waiving laws like they are flags and issuing Executive Orders like they are Kleenex's at a funeral.

  37. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.04

    "willing to work to repeal it" and replace with what plan? Until we hear a plan, we can assume Romney means return to the pre-ObamaCare status quo where insurance companies could drop you for whatever reason, refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, and waste money on overhead and leather chairs. ACA is better than what came before. It is a step in the right direction.

  38. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.07.04

    And LK, "two lessers" is indeed a fine flourish!

  39. D.E. Bishop 2012.07.04

    Jana, it's not just that I agree with most of the points you make in your comments. It's that I sometimes LOL at the sharp wit and cutting sarcasm that you use. Go girl!!!

  40. Jana 2012.07.05

    Thanks D.E.! I'm flattered, as I look forward to your insights. Just trying to mix a little fun in with the serious discussions. Hope your 4th was as much fun as we had today.

Comments are closed.